B.L.Yadav - (1.) -By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 30-3-1989 and 4-5-1987 passed in proceedings under Section 29 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short the Act).
(2.) THE petitioner has in her possession an area of 113.12 acres of land, whereas under law she was entitled to retain only 18.02 acres of land. A notice under Section 29 of the Act was served on her as some additional land indicated under Section 29 (a) and (b) has come in her possession, which makes it obligatory on the part of the State to redetermine the ceiling area. Consequently the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why not the land in her possession be declared surplus being more than 18.02 acres. Seven issues were framed. Issue no 6 was to the effect as to whether the subsequent notice for re-determination of the land was time barred. THE Prescribed Authority vide order 20-4-1987, held that it was not time barred. Against that order an appeal was preferred which was dismissed as not maintainable by order dated 30-3-1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that a bare reading of Section 29 read with Section 13-A of the Act, leads to the inference that even re-determination could be done within a period of two years as provided under Section 13-A of the Act. Hence the said notice was time barred. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, urged, that Section 13-A of the Act does not prescribe limitation for re-determination of surplus land, rather it is when there is any mistake apparent on the face of record or some other Mistake is sought to be rectified, in that event the period is of two years and not for re-determination of surplus land. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned orders are perfectly correct. A bare reading of Section 13-A makes it evident that the Prescribed Authority may, at any time, within a period of two years from the date of notification under sub-section (4) of Section 14, rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record. There is a proviso added that no such rectification which has the effect of increasing the surplus land shall be made unless the Prescribed Authority has given notice to the tenure holder of its intention to do so and has given him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. But that proviso would not apply here. In case the notice under Section 29 of the Act was for redetermination of surplus land, for that there was no limitation. If it is assumed that there was some limitation prescribed for re-determination, in that event the very object and purpose of enacting Section 29 would be frustrated. The elementary rule of interpretation of statute is that it has to be textual and contextual. All the provisions of the Act have to be read together, similarly all the parts of the said section have also to be read together. Interpretation has to be made with a view so that no part of it is rendered otiose or nugatory. For redetermination of surplus area there is a no limitation under Section 13-A. After notification under Section 14 (4), the period of two years has been prescribed for rectification of mistakes apparent on the face of the record. In respect of notice under Section 29 of the Act there was no period of limitation.
(3.) APPLYING the periori and posteriori reasonings, I am of the view that there are no merits in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the petition fails and it is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.;